DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Department of the Interior

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Department of the Interior United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE East Lansing Field Office (ES) 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite l 0 l IN REPLY RFFER TO: East Lansing, Michigan 48823-6316 November 4, 2011 Ms. Xio Cordoba Heritage Sustainable Energy 121 East Front Street Traverse City, MI 49684-2570 Dear Ms. Cordoba: Thank you for your previous correspondence with our office concerning Phase I of your proposed wind energy development located on the Garden Peninsula in Delta County Township 39N, Range 18W, Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9; and Township 40N, Range 18W, Sections 28, 29, 32, and 33. Our records indicate that Phase I of the proposed project involves 14 commercial wind turbines located approximately 0.5 to 1.5 miles from the Lake Michigan shoreline. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) supports the development of alternative energy sources. However, if not appropriate1y designed and sited, wind turbines may negatively impact wildlife and their habitats. Our comments in this letter are provided pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; Eagle Act). We provide this information to inform Heritage Sustainable Energy of our assessment of risk to migratory birds and bald eagles from this proposed wind development. Based on the data currently available, we must once again recommend that you not construct a commercial wind energy development on the Garden Peninsula because of the high potential for avian mortalities and violations ofFederal wildlife laws. Since 2007, our office has expressed significant concerns with this project. Our concerns are based on several factors, including the proximity of the project to a Great Lakes shoreline and Big Bay de Noc, the proximity of the project to adjacent wetland habitats, and the fact that this peninsula will tend to funnel avian migrants and serve as a point of departure or arrival for birds crossing Lake Michigan. These factors arc all likely to lead to a high level of avian use on the Garden Peninsula that could result in high levels of avian mortality by wind turbines at the proposed project site. Because of our concerns, in our early project correspondence with Dr. Paul Kerlinger on December 18, 2007, we recommended that no turbines be constructed within three miles of a Great Lakes shoreline. On June 25, 2009, in a letter to Mr. Rick Wilson, we again recommended Ms. Xio Cordoba 2 that no turbines be sited within three miles of the shoreline and further recognized that it would be very ditlicult to achieve this three-mile distance at any place within the Garden Peninsula. In 20 t t, Heritage presented our office with data collected specifically for this project site and this data. described in more detail below, has validated our wildlife related concerns for this proposed project. We were in the process of finalizing additional information that you had requested concerning our bald eagle risk assessment, when we received your October 18, 2011, letter transmitting a "Comprehensive Avian Risk Assessment for the Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project, Delta County, Michigan" (September 2011, Curry & Kerlinger, LLC-9-27-t 1). Your letter indicated that you accepted the conclusions of the Curry & Kerlinger Risk Assessment and intended to move forward with construction of the wind energy development, regardless of our previous recommendations and wildlife concerns. First, we strongly disagree with the conclusions presented in the Curry & Kerlinger Risk Assessment. The data available suggests that construction of a commercial wind energy development on Garden Peninsula is likely to pose a very high risk for avian mortalities, including a high risk for bald eagle mortalities. The Service will provide you with a more detailed response related to our concerns about the Curry & Kerlinger Risk Assessment in the near future. Second, although we have appreciated your periodic etlbrts to coordinate with our otlice as your project planning has progressed, you have failed to sufliciently collect and analyze comprehensive information concerning avian use of the project area prior to construction. The Service recommends that this information is collected and analyzed well in advance of project construction so that it is available to inform project siting. Additionally, you do not appear to be adequately considering the limited data you have collected. The proposed turbine locations are in areas where you have documented high avian use and thus are not adequately setback from the Great lakes shoreline or other important wildlife habitats. Therefore, we continue to recommend that the project be substantially reevaluated or abandoned. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The MBTA implements four treaties that provide for international protection of migratory birds. The MBT A prohibits any taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. Bald and golden eagles are afforded additional legal protection under the Eagle Act. Eagle concerns and recommendations are outlined in the next section of this letter. Your project specific data documents the high levels of avian use at the proposed project site. For example, monitoring efforts fbr the proposed project produced a mean of 732.8 ··targe" birds detected per survey (122.1 "large" birds I hour) and 73.3 ··small'' birds detected per survey (366.5 "small"' birds I hour) in the fall of2010 within the project area. The presence of birds during these surveys supports the concerns that the Garden Peninsula is an avian migration corridor, especially during the fall, and it is likely an important movement corridor as birds traverse the island chain that extends north from Door County, Wisconsin. Ms. Xio Cordoba 3 The high level of avian use documented to date at the project site likely presents an incomplete picture of actual avian use and risk. As acknowledged in Curry & Kerlinger Risk Assessment, nocturnal migrating birds very likely utilize the Garden Peninsula in high numbers and congregate in suitable stopover habitat throughout the peninsula in both the faH and the spring. Congregation of these birds is especially likely, near the southern tip of the peninsula. During nocturnal movements to and from these stopover sites, these birds very likely utilize a large percentage of the airspace over the peninsula as they pass south during the fall and north during the spring. To date, Heritage has provided no data regarding use of airspace during nocturnal movements of birds within the peninsula or within this project's phase one boundary. Previous studies using weather radar data has shown large movements of land bird migrations in the fall at night from the Upper Peninsula ofMichigan in route to crossing Lake Michigan and presumably 1 passing directly through the Garden Peninsula (Diehl et a/2003) • We believe avian mortality during nocturnal movements, particularly when birds are arriving or departing these stopover sites. may be one of the most significant threats to migratory birds from this proposed project. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Eagle Act is one of the primary federal laws protecting eagles and prohibits, among other things, the killing and disturbance of eagles. The Service published a Final Eagle Permit Rule on September 11,2009 (50 CFR 22.26) authorizing limited issuance of permits to take bald and golden eagles where the take is associated with but not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity (74 Fed. Reg. 46836, September 11, 2009). A permit is not required to conduct any particular activity, but is necessary to avoid potential liability for take caused by an activity. Based on the available information to date, our assessment is that the proposed commercial wind energy development on the Garden Peninsula is likely to take bald eagles. We conducted this assessment using the evaluation process described in the Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance. Our assessment is supported by your spring and fall 20 lO data which indicates that eagles frequently use the project area and fly within and below the proposed rotor swept area. The results of our initial assessment suggested that eagle fatality rates at the proposed project site may be approximately one eagle every 2.05 years and may be as high as one bald eagle every 0. 97 years. Further, the actual risk to eagles may be substantially greater than our initial assessment since eagle use was not quantified for several periods during the year due to a lack of site-specific monitoring data during the ear1y breeding season, late breeding/early fledging period and winter when suitable foraging habitat may be present very near the project area. Summary As discussed in previous meetings, previous correspondence, and in this letter, any eagle or migratory bird mortalities caused by your proposed facility would be a violation of the MBTA and/or the Eagle Act. Please be advised, any take of migratory birds is a potential criminal violation of the MBTA and/or the Eagle Act. These events will be properly referred to our law enforcement office for appropriate follow-up. While the Eagle Act does allow the Service to issue a permit for the take of eagles under certain circumstances, ( 1) based on the information 1 Diehl, R.H., R.P. Larkin, and J.E. Black. 2003. Radar Observations of Bird Migmtion Over the Great Lakes. The Auk 120(2): 278-290. Ms. Xio Cordoba 4 you have provided, we are not sure that you will be able to meet the criteria [50 CFR § 22.26 (f) - #4 and #5] necessary for a permit to be issued; and (2) you have not applied for a permit to authorize take of an eagle. Currently there is no permit available to authorize the take of migratory birds at wind facilities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phase I Avian Risk Assessment
    PHASE I AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Report Prepared for: Heritage Sustainable Energy October 2007 Report Prepared by: Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D. John Guarnaccia Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, fax 884-4569 [email protected] [email protected] Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project, Delta County, MI Phase I Avian Risk Assessment Garden Peninsula Wind Energy Project Delta County, Michigan Executive Summary Heritage Sustainable Energy is proposing a utility-scale wind-power project of moderate size for the Garden Peninsula on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan in Delta County. This peninsula separates northern Lake Michigan from Big Bay de Noc. The number of wind turbines is as yet undetermined, but a leasehold map provided to Curry & Kerlinger indicates that turbines would be constructed on private lands (i.e., not in the Lake Superior State Forest) in mainly agricultural areas on the western side of the peninsula, and possibly on Little Summer Island. For the purpose of analysis, we are assuming wind turbines with a nameplate capacity of 2.0 MW. The turbine towers would likely be about 78.0 meters (256 feet) tall and have rotors of about 39.0 m (128 feet) long. With the rotor tip in the 12 o’clock position, the wind turbines would reach a maximum height of about 118.0 m (387 feet) above ground level (AGL). When in the 6 o’clock position, rotor tips would be about 38.0 m (125 feet) AGL. However, larger turbines with nameplate capacities (up to 2.5 MW and more) reaching to 152.5 m (500 feet) are may be used.
    [Show full text]
  • Great Lakes Coastal Program Strategic Plan
    U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE The Coastal Program ~ Strategic Plan ~ Stewardship of Fish and Wildlife Through Voluntary Conservation Regional Step-Down Plan Region 3 - “Great Lakes -Big Rivers” Part 2 of 3 FY 2007-2011 Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................1 II. Regional Overview..................................................................................................................... 3 Wetland Habitat Types............................................................................................................... 3 Coastal Upland Habitat Types ................................................................................................... 4 Stream/Riparian Habitat Types.................................................................................................. 5 Issues and Risks ......................................................................................................................... 6 Cooperative Conservation.......................................................................................................... 6 III. Goal One: Conserving Habitat................................................................................................. 7 Regional Objectives ................................................................................................................... 7 Key Strategic Activities ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity of Michigan's Great Lakes Islands
    FILE COPY DO NOT REMOVE Biodiversity of Michigan’s Great Lakes Islands Knowledge, Threats and Protection Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist April 5, 1993 Report for: Land and Water Management Division (CZM Contract 14C-309-3) Prepared by: Michigan Natural Features Inventory Stevens T. Mason Building P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 3734552 1993-10 F A report of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. 309-3 BIODWERSITY OF MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS Knowledge, Threats and Protection by Judith D. Soule Conservation Research Biologist Prepared by Michigan Natural Features Inventory Fifth floor, Mason Building P.O. Box 30023 Lansing, Michigan 48909 April 5, 1993 for Michigan Department of Natural Resources Land and Water Management Division Coastal Zone Management Program Contract # 14C-309-3 CL] = CD C] t2 CL] C] CL] CD = C = CZJ C] C] C] C] C] C] .TABLE Of CONThNTS TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORY AND PHYSICAL RESOURCES 4 Geology and post-glacial history 4 Size, isolation, and climate 6 Human history 7 BIODWERSITY OF THE ISLANDS 8 Rare animals 8 Waterfowl values 8 Other birds and fish 9 Unique plants 10 Shoreline natural communities 10 Threatened, endangered, and exemplary natural features 10 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH ON MICHIGAN’S GREAT LAKES ISLANDS 13 Island research values 13 Examples of biological research on islands 13 Moose 13 Wolves 14 Deer 14 Colonial nesting waterbirds 14 Island biogeography studies 15 Predator-prey
    [Show full text]
  • Wisconsin's Door Peninsula and Its Geomorphology
    WISCONSIN'S DOOR PENINSULA AND ITS GEOMORPHOLOGY Howard De II er AGS Collection, UW-Mllwaukee and Paul Stoelting University of Wisconsin-La Crosse The Door Peninsula of Wisconsin is one of the premier tourist regions of the American r~iddle West. According to a recent geography of Wisconsin (Vogeler et al 1986,8) , the region is best known for its picturesque sea­ scape, New England-style architecture, fish boils, and cherry orchards. Among geomorphologists, however, the region is known for the great variety of land­ form types and for the complex and changing geomorphological processes which have operated in the peninsula. Towering bluffs, sand dunes, lake terraces, abandoned beach ridges, swampy lowlands, and drumlin fields are only some of the many types of landforms to be found in the peninsula. Indeed, the region can be viewed as a unique geomorphological laboratory and an excellent example for classroom study. In this short paper an attempt is made to describe and analyze some of the more prominent landform features of the peninsula and the processes which have influenced their formation. LOCATION AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS The Door Peninsula, located In northeastern Wisconsin. is part of the Eastern Ridges and Lowlands province of the state. The peninsula extends in a northeasterly direction into Lake Michigan to separate Green Bay on the west from the main body of Lake Michigan on the east. The peninsula is approximately 64 miles long and about 26 miles wide on its southern end, between the mouth of the Fox River and the city of Kewaunee on Lake Michigan (Map I).
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: a Second Iteration
    Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Region: A Second Iteration (Revised September 2000) Prepared by The Nature Conservancy Great Lakes Program 8 South Michigan Avenue Suite 2301 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 759-8017 Copyright 2000 Toward a New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes Toward A New Conservation Vision for the Great Lakes In 1996, The Nature Conservancy’s Great Lakes Program launched a collaborative initiative to identify high priority biodiversity conservation sites in the Great Lakes region. This initiative was precipitated by the Conservancy broadening its focus beyond just rare and endangered species and natural communities. The Conservancy recognized that to effectively protect the full range of biodiversity, conservation efforts must include those species and natural communities that are more common and representative as well as those that are declining or vulnerable. Taking an Ecoregional Perspective To address this shift in focus, the Conservancy oriented its work based on ecoregions—large areas defined by the influences of shared climate and geology, the main factors that determine the broad-scale distribution of plants and animals.1 The Great Lakes ecoregion—which includes major portions of Canada and the United States—is one of 64 ecologically distinct regions of the continental United States. For each of these ecoregions, the Conservancy is developing a detailed plan that identifies the places that need to be protected to conserve native biodiversity for the long term. At many of these places, local communities, private landowners and an array of public and private entities are already leading important conservation efforts. The Great Lakes ecoregional planning initiative is a systematic approach that identifies all native species, natural communities and aquatic systems characteristic of the Great Lakes region and then determines how many of and where these elements of biodiversity need to be protected over the long term.
    [Show full text]
  • North End of Lake Michigan, Including Green Bay NOAA Chart 14902
    BookletChart™ North End of Lake Michigan, Including Green Bay NOAA Chart 14902 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Published by the small-craft harbor at Petoskey is protected on the W by a breakwater extending N from shore and marked on the outer end by a light. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration breakwater should not be passed close aboard due to large riprap National Ocean Service stones along the sides, and end. Office of Coast Survey Beaver Island, the principal island in the group W of Grays Reef Passage, is 13 miles long N and S with a maximum width of 6.5 miles. The wooded www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov island is bluff on the W side and lower on the E side. Shoals extend 888-990-NOAA about 0.5 to 1 mile offshore around the island, except in Sandy Bay, about mid-length of the E side, where deep water is within 0.2 mile of What are Nautical Charts? shore. Good Harbor Bay, between Carp River Point and Pyramid Point 7.7 Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show miles WSW, has deep water close to shore and affords protection in all water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much but N to NE winds. However, in the NE part of the bay, an extensive more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and rocky ledge with depths of 2 to 18 feet is 1 to 3 miles offshore.
    [Show full text]
  • Nahma Township Recreation Plan 2011-2015
    NAHMA TOWNSHIP RECREATION PLAN 2011-2015 Acknowledgments Nahma Township Board: Cindy Bradshaw, Supervisor Patti Migut, Clerk Elizabeth Denessen, Treasurer Mary LaVigne, Trustee Ruth Bingham, Trustee Nahma Township Recreation Committee: Glenn Lamberg, Chairperson Kathy Fries, Vice-Chairperson Dawn White Christine Groleau Charley & Laurie MacIntosh Carlton Johnson, Jr. Tammy Frankovich Mark Hansen Jerry Herod Special thanks to the following individuals/organizations for their assistance: Michelle Dewitt, Senior Planner, Central Upper Peninsula Planning and Development (CUPPAD), 2415 14th Ave. South, Escanaba, MI, www.cuppad.org Anne Okonek, US Forest Service, Rapid River, MI Marilyn Shy, Upper Peninsula RC&D Program, Marquette, MI Nahma Township Historic Society-Photos/Documents Jon Hayes-Proof Reading and Suggestions Phyllis Lamberg-Proof Reading Betty Denessen-Proofing and Suggestions Violet Sargent and Dani Groleau-Proofing History Mary Lavigne-Day Trips Section Tee Lynts-Proofing and Guidance Acknowledgements NAHMA TOWNSHIP RECREATION PLAN 2011-2015 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Nahma Township History ............................................................................................ 4 2.0 ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE ................................................................................... 10 2.1 Organizational Structure ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft​ ​Green Bay​ ​National Wildlife Refuge Fishing Plan
    APPENDIX B GREEN BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE DRAFT FISHING PLAN Draft Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge ​ ​ ​ ​ Fishing Plan January 2019 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge W4279 Headquarters Road Mayville, WI 53050 Submitted By: Project Leader ______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Concurrence: Refuge Supervisor ______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Approved: Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System ______________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date Page 2 Table of Contents I. Introduction 4 II. Statement of Objectives 6 III. Description of Fishing Program 7 A. Areas to be Opened to Fishing 7 B. Species to be Taken, Fishing Periods, Fishing Access 7 C. Angler Permit Requirements 7 D. Consultation and Coordination with the State 7 E. Law Enforcement 7 F. Funding and Staffing Requirements 8 IV. Conduct of the Fishing Program 8 A. Angler Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures 8 B. Refuge-Specific Regulations 8 C. Relevant State Regulations 8 D. Other Rules and Regulations for Anglers 8 V. Public Engagement 9 A. Outreach Plan for Announcing and Publicizing the Fishing Program 9 B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Fishing Program 9 C. How the Public Will be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations 9 VI. Compatibility Determination 9 ​ ​ VII. References 9 Page 3 DRAFT GREEN BAY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ​ ​ FISHING PLAN I. Introduction ​ National wildlife refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
    [Show full text]
  • Industrial Capitalism and the Company Town: Structural Power, Bio-Power, and Identity in Nineteenth-Century Fayette, Michigan
    Industrial Capitalism and the Company Town: Structural Power, Bio-Power, and Identity in Nineteenth-Century Fayette, Michigan Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Cowie, Sarah E. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 05/10/2021 15:28:41 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/195560 INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM AND THE COMPANY TOWN: STRUCTURAL POWER, BIO-POWER, AND IDENTITY IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY FAYETTE, MICHIGAN by Sarah E. Cowie _____________________ Copyright © Sarah E. Cowie 2008 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2008 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Sarah E. Cowie entitled Industrial Capitalism and the Company Town: Structural Power, Bio-Power, and Identity in 19th Century Fayette, Michigan and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 03/31/08 David Killick _______________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing for a Living on the Great Lakes by Janet C
    Fishing for a Living on the Great Lakes by Janet C. Gilmore Commercial fishing on the Great Lakes, as with most work today along or on the water, has become a much less pervasive, visible activity than it once was. Fewer people operating larger, more powerful equipment harvest an increasingly restricted catch. Fish­ janet C Gilmore received her Ph.D in folk­ ing has become a specialized occupation no longer fully- integrated lore from Indiana University and is currently into the daily lives of the lakeside population. While perpetually self-employed, working out ofMadison , Wisconsin. During the past year she has threatened with extinction by overfishing, heavy pollution, and the interviewed commercial fishermen from Lake introduction (purposeful and inadvertent) of non-native species, Superior, Lake Michigan, and the Mississippi River for several regional folk arts surveys, and edible fish still survive in the Great Lakes in enough numbers to publishedThe World of the Oregon Fishboat, sustain an average annual U.S. catch of75-100 million pounds. Also based on fieldwork conducted among Charles­ ton, Oregon's commercia/fishers during the threatened, but with political constraints and a smaller share of the late 1970s. catch, a hardy lot of Great Lakes commercial fishers has continued to pass on to new generations its way of making a living. Of all the Great Lakes states Michigan touches upon the most lakes and boasts the greatest shoreline, yet her numbers of commercial fishermen and pounds of fish commercially landed fall surprisingly second to Wisconsin's and barely surpass Ohio's. Partly because of complex political issues and partly because of profound regional differences in the state, most of Michigan's commercial fishers work off the Upper Peninsula.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules
    25880 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 1997 / Proposed Rules 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of the record of the public hearing and on with the floodplain management criteria confidentiality accompanies the any other relevant written submissions required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the submission when it is received by EPA, and other pertinent information. This minimum that are required. They it may be made available to the public information will be available for public should not be construed to mean that without further notice to the person inspection at the EPA Air Docket, the community must change any making comments. Docket No. A±97±26 (see ADDRESSES). existing ordinances that are more B. Public Participation Dated: May 8, 1997. stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The Any person desiring to present Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and community may at any time enact testimony regarding this proposed rule stricter requirements of its own, or at the public hearing (see DATES) Radiation. [FR Doc. 97±12476 Filed 5±9±97; 8:45 am] pursuant to policies established by other should notify the contact person listed Federal, state or regional entities. These BILLING CODE 6560±50±P above of such intent as soon as possible. proposed elevations are used to meet A sign-up sheet will be available at the the floodplain management registration table the morning of the requirements of the NFIP and are also FEDERAL EMERGENCY hearing for scheduling testimony for used to calculate the appropriate flood MANAGEMENT AGENCY those who have not notified the contact insurance premium rates for new person.
    [Show full text]
  • General Management Plan
    FUTURE PLAN INSERTS 10-Year Action Plan (LONG-RANGE ACTION GOALS TO ATTAIN GMP) - Phase-2 of the Management Planning Process. Includes review and update of General Management Plan. 5-Year Implementation Plan (SPECIFIC ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT) - Phase-3 of the Management Planning Process. Includes review and update of General Management Plan and Phase 2 Plan. Annual Work Plan and Progress Report - Phase-4 of the Management Planning Process. Plan for upcoming year and report on completion of prior year’s plan. Operational/Management Resources - The following categories are established as a guide for the park manager to use to supplement this working document. Other categories can be added as needed. • Annual Work Plan (NOTE…this should reflect the values and emphasis of the Zones established for the park and tie-in with Phase 4 – Annual Report of Management Planning) • Staffing • Budget • Equipment • Training • Public Relations / Marketing / Outreach • Programming (ie. special events, MCCC, volunteers, etc.) • Public Health, Safety, and Welfare - Water system - Wastewater system - Electrical system - Law enforcement - Emergency access plans - Wildfire plan • CRS • FOIA • Infrastructure Inventory • Raster Image Index • Raster Images of historic park plans • Other… Fayette Historic State Park – General Management Plan 35 SUPPORTING ANALYSIS 721 acres Latitude: 45.718574 Longitude: -86.649266 (Latitude and Longitude at park entrance) Park Setting – • LOCATION AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITY – Fayette Historic State Park (HSP) is approximately 721 acres located in Delta County on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Fayette HSP lies within Town 38N, Range 19W, Sections 3, 4, 5, and 9, and Town 39N, Range 19W, Sections 33 and 34 on the Garden Peninsula, which encompasses Snail Shell Harbor.
    [Show full text]